So no, "consciousness" is not whatever you think it is. It's something that needs to be defined before you can discuss its properties, even if such a definition is simplistic or limiting.

There are simplistic definitions, but we've already covered that. It's the complexities that become "whatever you think it is", because there are no standards set in this area to base anything from, and the whole idea is that you are consciousness.

I do understand that thinking that the Sun is the creator and animator of life on Earth is considered a bit far fetched, but that is the basis behind my view of this. We were created by the Sun and we are the "consciousness" of the Sun. Well, except those of us who aren't the Sun. They're created in the night and by the darkness when the Sun's influence is weakest.

Quote:

Furthermore, by that same definition it is "mysterious, unknown and unobservable" and therefore it does not lend itself to rational study or debate.

I was being general and vague by saying it is mysterious, unknown and unobservable. Those were poor words to describe it. I meant more that it goes on unobserved by the masses, rather than that it is unobservable, and because of that it remains mysterious and unknown in a general sense. It isn't seen as a physical thing with your eyes in any one given moment, but you can only observe it's progression through time (as, essentially, it is a "time traveler", it traverses time).

Quote:

Sure, it's one of the things that fit in there, but it is certainly not a "one-equation summary" of the entire theory.

I agree with that. I think it's clear that it should have been worded for someone who didn't know what relativity is and not used aspects of the theory to describe it, even though we both know plenty about it I'm sure.

Quote:

The word you're looking for is "equivalent". "Relative" by itself is too vague a term unless you state what is relative to what.

Equivalent was actually one of the words I used, when referencing 'Mass-Energy Equivalency', one of the links describing what I was talking about.

Quote:

What you have done so far is instill a magical property in all particles that can do whatever you want it to do, without justification for why you do this.

There is no magic to it at all, just like there is no magic to the atomic bomb -- that was word play and related to the Richard Feynman video. It simply explains another facet of evolution that is unnoticed by most at this point in time, but there has been great study on it.

Quote:

It can explain everything and predict nothing.

Simply untrue. This is my interpretation of the spiritual side of the theory of evolution. I'm referencing science to explain religious phenomena, which I think can be done and makes sense. The old religions weren't wrong, but we have no explanations for why they were. The explanation and discovery of consciousness has been shown to be considered "crazy", even if it is something many of us experience. I find that odd.

Quote:

Through a convenient choice of words, you have linked this magical property of matter to human awareness and reasoning, but you have provided no reason for these two to be identified.

It goes beyond Humans. Reason for awareness and reasoning to be identified? I'm not sure I follow you, but those two things simply exist. I claim they exist as a non-local property which belongs to the matter (energy) distributed throughout the universe, and I name that property Consciousness

Quote:

A sperm whale has considerably more mass than you do. Does it then have more "consciousness"?

Doubt it. As I said though, consciousness is not local or bound directly to the matter, it is created by the matter like we create sound with our voice. Electrons speak in photons. It's influence is not specific to it's own matter, such that the Sun would influence only the Sun. The conclusion of this idea is that the Sun would influence -- with a goal of total embodiment -- these bio-mechanical machines of ours, as would other stars and planets.

Quote:

Why don't they shape the world in the shape they want it to be in?

They do from their perspective. What makes you think they don't?

Quote:

By the way, birds navigate by the stars too.

Indeed, and they can even see the magnetosphere!

Quote:

Change in what?

Change in a general sense. Change in technologies used by us, species appearing and disappearing, geological changes, and changes in the creations that are made. Even changes in human biology, such as taller, fatter, longer living, or even different colored people. Change in the whole, not just one specific area of it.

Quote:

Which again has nothing to do with entropy.

So what you are saying is that entropy does not apply to us, or that it is unobservable? Why?I disagree!

Quote:

That's a throwaway line with no informational content.

It was also a funny song by They Might Be Giants. Why so serious?

Quote:

I'm sorry. Really, I am, but you sound exactly the same as all other crackpots who think they've figured out the nature of the universe and write lengthy letters to universities and journals and wonder why they're not being taken seriously. You use terms and concepts that you barely understand and mash them together in fluffy sentences where you assign your own meaning and associations and twist the meaning of words to be what you want it to be.

I don't search for approval, or to be taken seriously. I enjoy discussing it as a possibility.

Just to clarify what I meant specifically: what I wrote previously applies when it comes to "conspiracy theories" and how I have heard people and politicians use this term to get a desired effect. It reminds me of the using the term like "having a pact with the devil"...have we really improved our consciousness at all for the last couple thousand years or just complicated our vocabulary ? Are we going to finally globally evolve and reach enlightenment(reason) some day or remain a bunch of ritualistic god-fearing sheep ?

It's another discussion but, I don't think it's a good idea to mix together terms of physics and consciousness, unless u can explain what they have to do with each other empirically maybe?

Physics is a collection of teachings which describe the natural world using the scientific method. It must also describe how the religions came to be the way they came to be. It explains why they built their temples where they did, and why they practiced the various teachings that they had for so long. Why did it evolve to that point? Why were the indigenous people of this island slaughtered and banished from practicing the beliefs they had evolved?

I think physics tells us why we went from singing and dancing looking up at the stars, to staring at boxes all day long and hiding the stars in a gross orange glow.

I think the higher physics studies offer proof of why the ancient religions were the way they were, and in doing so, proves that much of what they teach is scientific fact. They discovered it because they evolved into it, it wasn't written on some stone tablet and handed down from the mountain tops. They were slaughtered because the other side evolved an opposite view -- because they were on the opposite side, experiencing the influence from opposite stars at opposite times.

It's the complexities that become "whatever you think it is", because there are no standards set in this area to base anything from,

In that case you need to define and agree on what terms mean, even if their meaning is limited, because otherwise you (literally) don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

and the whole idea is that you are consciousness.

By your definition of consciousness, which is a magical property of matter. Which is certainly not the definition I gave, or the dictionary definition. There people have a consciousness, or experience consciousness or are conscious (not consciousness).

Quote:

I do understand that thinking that the Sun is the creator and animator of life on Earth is considered a bit far fetched,

Depends. Almost all life on Earth gets its energy from the sun, and life on Earth as we know it could not exist without the sun.Reading that sentence metaphorically, I have no problem with it. Read literally, it's bonkers.

Quote:

I was being general and vague by saying it is mysterious, unknown and unobservable.

Yes, and that's the problem with vague general statements like that.

Quote:

Simply untrue.

Ok, fine then. Predict me something falsifiable about your "consciousness" property that can do and be anything you want.

Quote:

I'm referencing science to explain religious phenomena, which I think can be done and makes sense.

Maybe. That's not what you do though. You take scientific concepts and words and twist their meaning. You reference science to make it sound "modern" or acceptable, or at least not completely crazy. They're words and concepts that mean very little to most people, but they're legitimate scientific terms. You're talking nonsense, but unless someone knows what the things you reference actually refer to, they can't tell.Not saying you're doing it deliberately, mind you - and I'm sure you believe the things you say and think they make sense. That's the tragic bit.

Quote:

The old religions weren't wrong, but we have no explanations for why they were.

Huh?What sort of explanation do you need or want for, say, Christianity or Judaism being what it is?

Quote:

It goes beyond Humans.

So you assert. But you make that link by naming the magical property you instill on all matter "consciousness". Let's call it brxybrytl instead. Now explain what brxybrytl has to do with human consciousness. Why are they related? Why do you identify them?

Quote:

Reason for awareness and reasoning to be identified?

That's not what I asked (and no, they're not the same thing). See above.

Quote:

I'm not sure I follow you,

I'm sure you don't.

Quote:

I claim they exist as a non-local property which belongs to the matter (energy) distributed throughout the universe,

Evidence?

Quote:

I name that property Consciousness

Why?

Quote:

Doubt it.

Thought so.

Quote:

As I said though, consciousness is not local or bound directly to the matter, it is created by the matter like we create sound with our voice.

But a sperm whale has more matter. Why doesn't it have more of this "consciousness" then?

Quote:

They do from their perspective. What makes you think they don't?

When was the last time you heard of whales digging out a trough in the ocean floor so they could pass from one stretch of ocean to another? Or set up krill farms in the ocean for a more reliable food supply?

Quote:

Change in a general sense.

What? So everything, no matter what, changes exponentially more now than it did in the past? Is that what you think?

Quote:

geological changes,

Thank you for quoting the obvious counter example to your previous statement.

Quote:

changes in the creations that are made.

What does that mean, "changes in the creations"? What "creations" are those and what "changes" are made, and how are they exponentially changing more now than they were in the past?

Quote:

So what you are saying is that entropy does not apply to us, or that it is unobservable?

No, I'm saying that the rate of human technological advancement accelerating is not related to entropy.

This what all people do who have no reasonable answer or argument for a subject except their own limited ideas based on little to no evidence. It's a convenient way to shut your mind to new information, the opposite of scientific research where you need to keep an open mind to discover anything new. Having fixed labels in your mind there is nothing to discover only repeat what you already know.

I think you are talking about cognitive science, or science of cultural cognitions of the past. Just ponder that it took thousands of years of scientific research and collaboration (many generations of knowledge) to have the physics we have today. We all share this knowledge (as scientist at least) and therefore we can reflect upon this (we agree about how it works). The ancient civilization also had their science that they developed likewise perhaps, but that knowledge is lost to us. What maybe lost there is also is not just knowledge, but all the tools necessary to maintain it. But I think people of the past were just as much scientist as we are today if not more,it just that they had vastly different things in mind perhaps. So you couldn't probably wish that back because u have no means to cultivate any of it...

Also mixing physics with pseudoscience is a big trend nowdays unfortunately for most people, because they use it to explain things that have little to do with the science. Most people find it fascinating cause it sounds maybe scientifically complicated. It sounds like mumbo jumbo to me probably because i studied too much physics to be able swallow it. Anyhow I don't think it's a healthy idea to touch science to explain certain things unless you are very well trained in that science and know what you are talking about. Otherwise you are really discrediting people who put in lifetimes of hard work into their research.

Which is certainly not the definition I gave, or the dictionary definition. There people have a consciousness, or experience consciousness or are conscious (not consciousness).

That is why consciousness is a disagreeable, controversial and confusing topic. That is backwards to the idea that it comes from matter -- which as you may have already guessed is not a widely accepted theory.

You still don't understand the idea, and it is related to bouncing around on the word 'consciousness' to various preconceived definitions of it, which is understandable considering the loose outline we've created. The way I'm using the term may seem more akin to "spirit", "soul", "life force" or "chi", but these things don't describe the self-awareness factor it has, which is important, and which is why the illusive word 'consciousness' works best It is still that same consciousness that you "have", but I propose it works differently than we feel like it does -- if you have one, and no everyone does.

All of those "religious" words for it carry more connotations related to the various followings they have and significant specific spiritual meanings, which further complicate things.

The person is subject to the consciousness, the person does not have a consciousness in a sense that it is unique to the person. The person is limited, finite and will perish. It's made of meat and will rot, the entire species will one day be extinct, and that is the destiny of all our bodies.

The consciousness that operates these bodies is unlimited, infinite and can only change. Matter is never created nor destroyed, and by this relationship consciousness can never be created nor destroyed. Things can only change from one state to another.

Quote:

You take scientific concepts and words and twist their meaning.

I'm open to the idea that I have something wrong, and if anyone can tell me what it is and why it's wrong it should be you... but it seems you can't. That's why your most recent post is filled with one word question responses and nonsense, avoiding contribution to discussion. Instead of flat out telling me it's wrong and why, you resort to what we see.

Quote:

Predict me something falsifiable about your "consciousness" property that can do and be anything you want.

It can't do or be anything I want in the sense you're describing. Those are your words and they are false. It also does not explain everything, which are your words. You're the one doing the twisting. You're mixing this with something you've heard before and being aggressive because it offends you

Quote:

But a sperm whale has more matter. Why doesn't it have more of this "consciousness" then?

It's not caused by the matter of the sperm whale itself. The sperm whale does not have consciousness in that sense. The consciousness has a sperm whale, and is animating the matter of the sperm whale. The mass which creates the consciousness controlling the sperm whale is many magnitudes greater than the sperm whale itself, if you remember correctly I said it is the stars and planets which have any sort of significant influence on consciousness.

Quote:

When was the last time you heard of whales digging out a trough in the ocean floor so they could pass from one stretch of ocean to another? Or set up krill farms in the ocean for a more reliable food supply?

Never. What does that prove? What are you even suggesting? Those things you're describing are related more to intelligence and capability, which are something else entirely.

Quote:

What does that mean, "changes in the creations"? What "creations" are those and what "changes" are made, and how are they exponentially changing more now than they were in the past?

By "changes in the creations" I am referring to changes in things that are created. It is shifting more towards creations by humans -- cities, buildings, cars, networks, cellphones, video games, music, art, weapons, babies, and more -- as opposed to less spontaneous, less complex (in terms of overall effect), and less frequent natural creations by the old "natural world" or whatever word your highness would choose to describe the pre-neolithic era.

Evert said:

Why must [physics] also describe [religion]?

It is part of what has emerged from the natural world, which is what physics claims (or aims, whatever) to be studying, or describing, or whatever word you want there. Physicists and consciousness philosophy are pretty much opposites though

Quote:

No, I'm saying that the rate of human technological advancement accelerating is not related to entropy.

Why not?

Quote:

Not quite the words I would use. I'd say physics is the field of study that aims to describe the natural world using the scientific method.

You're just nitpicking. That description differs little, the general meaning differs none.

I think you are talking about cognitive science, or science of cultural cognitions of the past.

Somewhat, but modern cognitive science focuses more on human reaction to it's environment. I'm speaking more about a spiritual side of things which I think there is evidence of because I believe we are in a game played by players on a "good" side and an "evil" side, and have started to believe in the idea of lamas/reincarnation and how that fits in with the repetitiveness of history.

Quote:

Also mixing physics with pseudoscience is a big trend nowdays unfortunately for most people, because they use it to explain things that have little to do with the science. Most people find it fascinating cause it sounds maybe scientifically complicated. It sounds like mumbo jumbo to me probably because i studied too much physics to be able swallow it. Anyhow I don't think it's a healthy idea to touch science to explain certain things unless you are very well trained in that science and know what you are talking about. Otherwise you are really discrediting people who put in lifetimes of hard work into their research.

I do understand that, but... I still think physics does describe some of the pseudosciences (or "religious beliefs"), because physics describes the way that macroscopic heavenly bodies interact, and the way that the laws which the substance of our universe, and consequently everything in it, are bound to. It seems the ancient cultures just understood the calling of the heavens by natural evolution, but it was suppressed by something. We were cut off from it, and the only reason I can come up with is that evil is real, and it comes from Egypt

I'm most interested in a casual discussion about the topic, and would prefer to be proven wrong.

Note that one of the most popular items right now in people's minds is that Tiger Woods is cheating on people. Why do we care? Why does everyone seem to care so much about Barack Obama? Pepsi anyone? Want to Google? Google make wave? Invite special wave yeah? Make wave for google? The "new media" can say whatever it wants. You lose all your rights, you get sick and die, you're broke, the world's going to end, barack obama, lemon pledge. It goes on and on.. Someone please tell me I'm not completely schizo and that this is leading towards insanity

That's why your most recent post is filled with one word question responses and nonsense, avoiding contribution to discussion. Instead of flat out telling me it's wrong and why, you resort to what we see.

No, you make assertions, I challenge you to justify them or clarify them. Unless it's clear what you're talking about or why you say what you do there's no point in having a discussion. See the definition of "consciousness", which started out without you giving a definition of what you mean by it.So, you tell me why you think these things and then maybe I can tell you why it's wrong or doesn't make sense - maybe because there are things that are outside my direct area of expertise.But you won't. You'll just say I'm nit-picking and have no counter arguments.

force which has the ability to animate the physical world, observe it, and make choices within it

So it has the ability to animate the world. It has a choice. That means you can invoke it to explain things that you want it to explain, but avoid the difficulty of why it doesn't explain something else: it chooses not to act.

You're mixing this with something you've heard before and being aggressive because it offends you

You're right, I have heard crap like this before, all too often. It doesn't offend me, it saddens me, especially if it's coming from someone who is clearly clever enough to know better.

Quote:

It's not caused by the matter of the sperm whale itself. The sperm whale does not have consciousness in that sense. The consciousness has a sperm whale, and is animating the matter of the sperm whale. The mass which creates the consciousness controlling the sperm whale is many magnitudes greater than the sperm whale itself, if you remember correctly I said it is the stars and planets which have any sort of significant influence on consciousness.

I am proposing that matter (stars, planets, and grains of sand) has an unseen, non-local, active property of consciousness. It is present in every atom, but I'm considering the macroscopic bodies like stars and planets. Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

You ascribe it the properties that you want it to have and that are convenient in any particular example.But I'm sure you'll claim it doesn't. So please explain. Why is it that "more matter = more 'consciousness'" applies to stars and black holes, but not sperm whales?

Yes, yes, human technological advancement has accelerated considerably. We've established that and it's clear why that is (you use technology you have to create newer technology that is more capable than the technologu you had before, repeat until natural resources run out). If that's specifically what you meant by "change in creations" then you should have been that specific and not use such a vague term that implies a broader scope than what you actually mean.Anyway, shifting more to creations by humans, eh? Do you mean that "creation" of other things has slowed down? Accelerated less? Stayed more or less constant? How does that fit in your general statement that "the amount of change that occurs is increasing"?

Quote:

babies,

Really? Babies now are more different from babies that were born a century ago than babies that were born a century ago are from babies that were born two centuries ago? In what sense? What's your source?Or is that not what you meant?

Quote:

It is part of what has emerged from the natural world, which is what physics claims (or aims, whatever) to be studying

Physics studies nature. It does not study biology or human psychology, although physics clearly has things to say about biology and possibly through a long chain of intermediate steps about human society, neither of those are physics. And then it's still a leap from human psychology to religion.So, I'll ask again. Why would physics have anything to say about why religions are the way they are? It doesn't say anything about why you or I do what we do, why is religion different?

Quote:

Why not?

Entropy is the number of possible realisations of a physical system. Where does that connect to human technological advancement?

Quote:

You're just nitpicking.

Yes - which is why I said they're not the words I'd use, not that you're wrong as such.

Quote:

That description differs little, the general meaning differs none.

The difference is subtle, but as I've been saying, you have to be precise in what you say or mean, or words that have a specific meaning in context carry along an associated meaning into a context where that associated meaning has no place. That's how you end up with crackpot pseudo-science involving "entropy" or "energy".

Quote:

I still think physics does describe some of the pseudosciences (or "religious beliefs"),

because physics describes the way that macroscopic heavenly bodies interact, and the way that the laws which the substance of our universe, and consequently everything in it, are bound to.

In principle, in practice physics does not tell you how the human mind works.Physics works well at describing interactions on a particular scale, but when scaling up (or down) and collective behaviour becomes important, fine details are lost. Yes, you can write down the equations of motion of every molecule in a fluid (which will be insanely difficult if you're not pretending molecules are simple hard spheres), but then you cannot calculate the macroscopic behaviour of a fluid directly from that set of equations. You need to average over local properties and integrate out the fine details. Then you get equations that tell you how fluid moves - but it will not tell you how individual water molecules move. That's before even considering things such as chaos (which makes it hard if not impossible to predict the future evolution of a system in anything other than probabilistic terms) or the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics (which has the same effect; it may not actually be stochastic at all, it may actually be chaotic, but it can be hard to tell the two apart), or the simple fact that our understanding of the laws of physics is incomplete.So, again, physics does not tell you much about biology, sociology and psychology, for all that those things refer to things that are in the universe and subject to the laws of physics.

Quote:

It seems the ancient cultures just understood the calling of the heavens by natural evolution, but it was suppressed by something.

No, they didn't understand. People who lived thousands of years ago did not have a better understanding of the natural world around us than we do (which is not saying that they didn't know practical things that we may not, like how to survive on a savanna).

Quote:

Note that one of the most popular items right now in people's minds is that Tiger Woods is cheating on people. Why do we care?

I don't know anyone who cares. I'll wager that if you asked random people from India, China or Africa what they thought they wouldn't care either. I'm sure most people in South America, Australia, Europe and, yes, North America wouldn't care either. So what do you mean exactly when you say "the most popular item right now in people's minds"? The world is so much larger than statements like that make it out to be.

See the definition of "consciousness", which started out without you giving a definition of what you mean by it.

I'll admit the definition is difficult. Even in that video I linked Dan Dennett starts off saying you can't describe what consciousness is. It's up there now. That video doesn't describe what I am describing at all. What I am describing is my own theory based on my own experiences and a mash up of many religions.

Quote:

Derezo said:It's not caused by the matter of the sperm whale itself. The sperm whale does not have consciousness in that sense. The consciousness has a sperm whale, and is animating the matter of the sperm whale. The mass which creates the consciousness controlling the sperm whale is many magnitudes greater than the sperm whale itself, if you remember correctly I said it is the stars and planets which have any sort of significant influence on consciousness.

Evert said:This flat-out contradicts what you said before:

Derezo said:I am proposing that matter (stars, planets, and grains of sand) has an unseen, non-local, active property of consciousness. It is present in every atom, but I'm considering the macroscopic bodies like stars and planets.Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

Evert said:You ascribe it the properties that you want it to have and that are convenient in any particular example.But I'm sure you'll claim it doesn't. So please explain. Why is it that "more matter = more 'consciousness'" applies to stars and black holes, but not sperm whales?

How does it "flat out" contradict it?There are no contradictions, you're making them up. You're misunderstanding and won't believe that you're misunderstanding because it has become your intention to do so, because you are basing your arguments on other discussions and not this one. You are not arguing this. This isn't what you think it is and it does not threaten you.

It does apply to sperm whales, but the sperm whale's consciousness has nothing to do with the mass of the sperm whale and I never said it did. I specifically said it is a non-local property which is essentially the voice of the cosmos speaking through the living matter inside of it. The mass of the sperm whale itself is like a grain of sand on the beach of "consciousness" and has nothing to do with the way the sperm whale experiences it.

You seem to be sensationalizing this idea. It is not new, and it doesn't break any existing theories, it's something that's always been here and will always be here. It is simply my way of explaining why and how the environment we are in (the stars and heavens above us) controls what we do in a very unique way.

Quote:

Anyway, shifting more to creations by humans, eh? Do you mean that "creation" of other things has slowed down?

Indeed, it has declined considerably. Thousands of species have gone extinct since I was born and the forests are being wiped out. Fruits and vegetables are not their wild variants but are genetically modified to be the same every time with little deviation (and less nutrients in some cases to increase yields). I am against organic food, but there's a mind virus going around making people think it's healthier or safer for you when the opposite is true.The fact that things are changing rapidly is not something I am really arguing. It's just happening. If you don't accept that, I'm fine with that.

Quote:

So, I'll ask again. Why would physics have anything to say about why religions are the way they are? It doesn't say anything about why you or I do what we do, why is religion different?

I disagree. I think it does say a lot about what we do and why we do it, but that is a different discussion. The religions are based on the stars, and physics does a great job at describing what the stars are and how they do the various things they do. By that link, I believe physics does describe religions, because they are both based heavily on the same thing.

Quote:

No, they didn't understand.

Why did they do it then? That's the real question. What drove people to setup temples under specific areas exposed to specific sections of heaven to study the stars for thousands of years?

Quote:

People who lived thousands of years ago did not have a better understanding of the natural world around us than we do.

Not in a scientific sense perhaps, or a sense of knowledge about it, but they were no doubt in it more and had far more experience with it. We all live, work and travel in boxes. They did not. They may have been less knowledgeable than us, bit it is naive to think they were any less intelligent or reasonable.

Quote:

So what do you mean exactly when you say "one of the most popular item right now in people's minds"? The world is so much larger than statements like that make it out to be.

There are many popular things in people's minds, and this is one of them. That's what I meant and nothing more. It's simply one of the millions of memes.I didn't say all people. Clearly that would be ridiculous. It is certainly enough of them for me to hear about it day after day from the various media and the people around me, even this forum. Many people go on by unaffected by it, too.. but more and more people seem to be getting sucked into this thing where they just believe anything they hear and don't formulate their own ideas.

Despite what you might think, this is an original idea. It is not based on whatever it is you're basing it on, but I would love to read the story you think it is just to see the similarities if you have it.

TF: I know that, and that's the point. Science to explain Religion. You can't be any more opposite, or any more controversial.

I can use science (physics) to explain religion. You start with atoms that are arranged into particular molecules, such as bi-lipid membranes and ionic channels, to form cells: neurons in this case. These neurons are reasonably complex dynamic systems, in the sense that their state (let's pick membrane potential) evolves in a non-linear fashion over time. These neurons are arranged into networks of the (yet) unknown design, to form the brain. This brain, then does its brainy stuff that is studied by the field of cognitive psychology. From there, you can go into sociology and derive religion from that.

I didn't need to invoke anything that is currently unknown in physics and (likely) chemistry to outline the above derivation of religion from first principles of physics. I don't see why you feel the need to do that.

Maybe if your methodology made any kind of sense (that is if you had one). The way you're currently going about it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Noted. Thanks for pointing it out. Have a wonderful day.

Siegelord: What I want to know is: Why did they go to the stars? What was their goal? They went through millions of years of evolution which lead to looking up at the stars and study them, drawing conclusions about them, creating gods, songs and stories about them. The ancient religions were far more complex than some of the religions of today even.

I don't think sociology describes religion from the perspective I'm interested in, which is from the perspective of evolution. I think there was a point to the evolution. That's all.

Follow my proof outline, and you'll have your answer why. Once you build the complete model of the brain, and tie that into sociology, you will be able to alter some parameters in the model and determine which values of parameters lead to the phenomena you describe.

I don't agree that survival is the entire point at all, there is far more to it. To say they did these things only to propagate their species and nothing more is narrow minded. Clearly that is a major element to evolution, but don't get stuck on the "survival of the fittest" mentality people have with evolution. That phrase is not all-encompassing or the "entire point". There is a bigger purpose here.

Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

It's not caused by the matter of the sperm whale itself. The sperm whale does not have consciousness in that sense. The consciousness has a sperm whale, and is animating the matter of the sperm whale. The mass which creates the consciousness controlling the sperm whale is many magnitudes greater than the sperm whale itself

In one instance you're saying things have more "consciousness" because they have more mass (your use of the word "relative" there), in the other you're saying something different.So how do you reconcile those two statements?

You're misunderstanding and won't believe that you're misunderstanding because it has become your intention to do so,

If by misunderstanding you think that I think that you make no sense, yes, that's right. So if you think it does make sense, why don't you go back and clarify those things that I said are unclear, vague or need justification?

Quote:

because you are basing your arguments on other discussions and not this one.

Nope. I have only quoted things you have said here. No other discussions.

Quote:

This isn't what you think it is and it does not threaten you.

I think it's pseudo-scientific nonsense, so far you have not given me a single reason to think it otherwise. And you're right, I don't feel threatened. Why even bring that up? Do you feel threatened by having your beliefs questioned?

Quote:

You seem to be sensationalizing this idea.

I'm not. I'm just responding to the claim that I say it's nonsense without being able to justify it. So far you have failed to clarify many of the things I asked you to clarify or justify.

Quote:

It is simply my way of explaining why and how the environment we are in (the stars and heavens above us) controls what we do in a very unique way.

That's fine. All I'm doing is pointing out gaps, apparent inconsistencies and leaps in logic that lead me to call it wrong. Again, you're free to respond to those and write a clear description of what your ideas are that answers all of those questions and concerns. But if that post is any indication, you'd rather complain that I just don't want to see what you're trying to say.

Let me put it this way. If I were asked to review a scientific paper that is as imprecise and vague in describing what it's talking about as you are, I'd send it back with a demand for greater clarity and precision in describing what it's talking about.

Quote:

Indeed, it has declined considerably. Thousands of species have gone extinct since I was born and the forests are being wiped out. Fruits and vegetables are not their wild variants but are genetically modified to be the same every time with little deviation (and less nutrients in some cases to increase yields).

Many of those things (if not all) are the result of human action. My question was about changes that are not due to human action. Has the rate of evolution slowed down? Has there been exponentially less volcanism over the past few hundred years? Plate tectonics? Star formation?

Quote:

I am against organic food, but there's a mind virus going around making people think it's healthier or safer for you when the opposite is true.

What's good about organic food is that it's usually locally grown and produced in a more resource-friendly way. And no, pesticides are not actually good for you.

Quote:

The fact that things are changing rapidly is not something I am really arguing. It's just happening. If you don't accept that, I'm fine with that.

I'm not saying human culture and technology aren't changing rapidly, or that humanity's impact on the world around us has increased considerably, I called you on "It is shifting more towards creations by humans", asking if by that you meant other things have altered their rate of change. You didn't answer that, instead you repeated that human society is changing rapidly and went off on some tangent about organic food.

Quote:

The religions are based on the stars, and physics does a great job at describing what the stars are and how they do the various things they do. By that link, I believe physics does describe religions, because they are both based heavily on the same thing.

Unfortunately whatever inspiration religion has drawn from the stars (a questionable assertion in itself if you ask me, but not relevant to this discussion) has very little to do with what stars actually are and what physics actually has to say about stars. I have a reproduction of van Gogh's Starry Night hanging above the dinner table, which also features stars quite prominently. However, physics has very little to do with van Gogh's paintings.

Quote:

I didn't say all people.

No, you said "people", a generic term. You may have meant a specific subset of people, but that means one thing to you and another thing to someone else. That's a problem with generic terms like that - and really at the heart of what I've said before: you're making statements using general terms that you have not clearly defined. You didn't even state what you mean by "consciousness" until I said that what you said about it doesn't make sense, at which point it turned out that you were using the term to mean something completely different than what it generally means. You can do that (sortof), but you need to be clear about what you mean.

This brain, then does its brainy stuff that is studied by the field of cognitive psychology. From there, you can go into sociology and derive religion from that.

Leaving aside the practical aspect of the problem, I am skeptical that one could in principle write down a set of equations describing the human brain and derive from that not only human psychology but also religion and all its aspects in its present form from first principles, even if there are no simplifications in the equations along the way (which in something remotely approaching the real world there would have to be). There are too many free parameters. Understanding the physics about different components of the brain (we certainly do that) doesn't imply you understand the brain as a whole (we don't).

I don't agree that survival is the entire point at all, there is far more to it.

Why? And what?

Quote:

There is a bigger purpose here.

What do you base that on?

Yes, I know, religion would tell you that there is a purpose, or a point. Religion is not science though, and those questions are asked from a scientific perspective. If you just want to slap the label "religion" on there, that's fine. To me, that doesn't answer the question though (which is what I have against religious or supernatural explanations in general - you can always make them fit if you really want to).

In one instance you're saying things have more "consciousness" because they have more mass (your use of the word "relative" there), in the other you're saying something different. So how do you reconcile those two statements?

You're suggesting that consciousness is exclusive to the object which appears to have the quality, I am not and have not been at all throughout this discussion. I'm saying that the object which has the quality is not the source of the quality. It is the stars which are the source, not the object itself. The object is made up of consciousness-making-stuff, but influence of the object itself is insignificant due to overpowering influence of the surrounding matter. I have been consistent in these things as they are the basis of the idea. The "scientific" explanation I've placed on this is a simple relationship which is unnecessary and can be scratched if you choose. I do suggest that energy, matter and influence of consciousness potential are equivalent, but it is not a necessary attachment to the idea if you feel it disagrees with your study of such sciences. It just helps me to know for myself because all things work under the same principles and while scientific theories never account for any sort of "life force" or "consciousness", there appears to be evidence of it's existence in our natural world. You may not believe that, but there is nothing I can say or do which will change you mind because "life force" and "soul" can be experienced, but communication of that experience is damn near impossible.

Quote:

Do you feel threatened by having your beliefs questioned?

No, but you're not questioning my beliefs, heh. You're questioning my explanation of it and the language used because you're going into it with a mindset that it is wrong even though you do not know what it is, which is called "prejudice" and is what happens to label makers.

Quote:

Nope. I have only quoted things you have said here. No other discussions.

Your responses to the quotes you make are not typically related to the premise of this discussion.

Quote:

I just don't want to see what you're trying to say.

I've already said that you were afraid of it, and that idea was based on my awareness of this.

Quote:

I called you on "It is shifting more towards creations by humans", asking if by that you meant other things have altered their rate of change. You didn't answer that

I did answer that My words were: Indeed, it has declined considerably. Thousands of species have gone extinct since I was born and the forests are being wiped out. The talk of agriculture was to note that not only are animals going extinct, but entire ecosystems are being destroyed and occupied by human created plants. In many cases the human created plants are engineered for the highest profit margins.

Quote:

Unfortunately whatever inspiration religion has drawn from the stars has very little to do with what stars actually are and what physics actually has to say about stars.

And that's where I strongly disagree. I understand your perspective, but I know of nothing in nature which agrees with that statement or offers a metaphor to aid it. Things are attracted to other things for reasons, and they evolve to be attracted to them for reasons. Take flowers as an example. Many flowers range in beauty and develop significant differences in order to attract bees to take their pollen so that they will procreate when the pollen is spread to other flowers. They evolve different colors and patterns, varying flavours and volumes of nectar, with the grand purpose of attracting the bees. There is reason in all things, and there are no exclusions. There is no denying that we were once attracted to the stars. I think this idea could be why, and that is all.

Quote:

That's a problem with generic terms like that - and really at the heart of what I've said before: you're making statements using general terms that you have not clearly defined.

Well, as I said, I'm trying to have a casual discussion. You are in interrogation mode because you are prejudice. If you didn't take every word with such a heavy heart it wouldn't be such a difficult conversation. I am not going to take the time to be ultra-specific and explain real world happenings in great detail when I'm speaking with someone who is moderately intelligent enough to cut away the obviously non-applicable states and focus on the core of the discussion. I continually admit the language is difficult, and you agree, but you can't get over it and keep going back to it.

This is not a small, simple topic. You are rubbing off as unaware of the world around you, but I know that is not true. I can't teach you all of these things just to show the idea that life is made by star stuff and is therefore controlled by the stars due to attraction, and what that implies with our history. You do not want to know that for reasons of your own. Frankly, I'm not sure why you bothered, you have nothing to gain from this discussion when you are closed to participating in it.

There are entire books written about the purpose of life. I cannot summarize it in a paragraph for you, and we will have to disagree there. You can have meaninglessness, and I will keep my meaning, it certainly doesn't need to be real for you for it to be real for me.

Understanding the physics about different components of the brain (we certainly do that) doesn't imply you understand the brain as a whole (we don't).

That's why I said it is an outline of the proof, not the actual proof. My point is that understanding of physics is in principle (but not yet in practice, as you point out) already sufficient to explain everything about humans without resorting to adding new properties of matter. Instead, the proper course of action is to follow each step of my outline, and that is what is being done in serious research.